leftwikiaorg-20200213-history
Progressive Change for Washington/Proposal
A Plan to Further Progressive Coordination July 5, 2007 Executive summary: There is great need for progressives to coordinate their political activities and, in particular, to amplify their media voices. Moreover, progressives typically oppose the excesses of private ownership and support public schools, public radio, publicly financed elections, and national health insurance. But when it comes to political activism, they fight tooth-and-nail for their own tightly-controlled interest group, website, or newsletter. To address the need for better coordination and cooperation in the Seattle area, we have two concrete proposals: #Progressive leaders should combine their multiple, small media voices into a louder, more unified voice by adopting a shared website that will serve as a portal (gateway) to content provided by member groups. Administration and editing of this website will be a shared responsibility. No single person or group will "own" this shared resource. #Progressives should convene a meeting wherein stakeholders discuss their goals and decide how to further coordinate their efforts. Longer term, we envision two additional areas where progressives can coordinate: content submission to traditional media and co-support on coalition actions. Background Numerous progressive organizations are active in the Puget Sound area: MoveOn, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, ACLU, Sierra Club, Democracy for America, Progressive Democrats, Democracy for Washington, Women in Black, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Progressive Majority. In addition, there are the more traditional Democratic groups such as union locals, local legislative district party organizations, and professional campaign organizations, as well as homegrown political/civic organizations such as the Lake Hills Liberals (http://www.lakehillsliberals.org). Then there are online progressive websites such as http://www.washblog.com , http://horsesass.org, Washington Public Campaigns (http://washclean.org), Northwest Progressive Institute (http://www.nwprogressive.org), and Working for Change http://www.workingassetsblog.com). (For a more complete list of liberal sites, see http://www.lakehillsliberals.org/resource/50LiberalOrganizations.htm .) Finally, there are progressive traditional media, such as Real Change, the Stranger, AM 1090 (Air America), KBCS (91.3 FM, http://kbcs.fm/site/PageServer) and a scattering of liberal columnists working for Seattle PI and other newspapers. The various groups have different emphases, tactics, and leaders. But there is great overlap in their goals. Most progressives support environmentalism, women's rights, gun control, fair taxation, civil rights, separation of church-and-state, health care reform (including national health insurance), environmental protection, election reform (verified voting), campaign finance reform, and well-funded public education. Moreover, there are probably thousands of progressive citizens who are eager to work to support issues and candidates but who feel powerless to effect change. As any progressive activist knows, only a handful of members are truly active. Coordinating the various progressive groups will be difficult -- like herding cats (or lions). Each group has its own turf to defend and its own power structure. Democrats are notorious for being disorganized and for fighting among themselves. The Republicans, in contrast, were able to unite behind a (terrible) leader, George W. Bush, despite their variegated coalition of libertarians, social conservatives, neconservatives, and corrupt capitalists. The various groups towed the line and swallowed their substantial differences for the sake of the greater cause. Moreoever, the Republicans have a disciplined, well-funded party organization that is effective at getting people to vote and getting its message heard in the media. Progressives particularly need to coordinate in the area of media access. This is for two reasons. First, progressives need to communicate better with each other. Second, progressives need to get their message out to the general public. We believe that better coordination among progressive groups would result in more effective politicking, would engender a louder and more coherent media voice, and would increase the likelihood of electing progressive candidates to office. Our proposals #A non-partisan, neutral, "inter-denominational" progressive website shall be created to provide a single source of news and direction. The various progressive groups will contribute (mostly unedited) content to the website. Management and editing of the website will be a shared task, perhaps using the model of a board of directors supervising an executive manager. Coalition partners would not lose their separate identities. The availability of a shared website will encourage broad participation and prevent the power-grabbing and bruised egos that occur when private owners try to monopolize media control. #To organize the shared website and to discuss additional areas for coordination, progressives shall convene a meeting (a progressive "summit meeting"). The main challenge of the summit meeting would be to organize such a website ("The Progressive Gateway"), perhaps utilizing existing websites such as WashBlog, horsesass.org, or Northwest Progressive Institute. The third and fourth proposals are a bit more ambitious and long term. (3) Progressives shall contact local media outlets (newspapers, radio, TV) and arrange regular or occasional columns/features of high quality material written and co-produced by coalition members. It may be easiest to start with small, local newspapers (like Bellevue Reporter) that are probably desparate for copy. The presence of opinionated, high quality material would attract readers and earn respect. The media outlets may require that our material appear alongside material submitted by conservatives. Eventually, progressives may want to start their own newspaper. (4) Coalition members shall agree to cooperate on each others' events and initiatives, by writing letters, making phone calls, appearing at meetings and rallies, etc. If conservatives can coordinate, why can't progressives? National health insurance, Social Security, community radio stations, union coalitions, and multi-national corporations all effectively utilize shared ownership. Shared ownership can work. For a coalition of progressives, it makes sense. Note: It may be difficult or impossible to get the national organizers of progressive groups (e..g, MoveOn, Sierra Club, and NARAL) to grant official support for this proposal. Such support is desirable but not necessary.